Water Crisis: How low could it go?

A disagreement between agencies over Hinckley Reservoir's minimum level hindered efforts to address the 2007 water shortage effectively, documents and e-mails obtained by the Observer-Dispatch show.

Elizabeth Cooper

A disagreement between agencies over Hinckley Reservoir's minimum level hindered efforts to address the 2007 water shortage effectively, documents and e-mails obtained by the Observer-Dispatch show.

The state Canal Corp. and Mohawk Valley Water Authority disputed throughout the water crisis when action needed to be taken to protect the region's water supply.

* As Hinckley Reservoir shrank, the Mohawk Valley Water Authority argued that drinking water could be disrupted if Hinckley fell to 1,185 feet in elevation.

* The state Canal Corp., however, said changes in reservoir outflows wouldn't be needed so soon because it believed Hinckley could drop as low as 1,170 feet in elevation.

“The historical fact is that Hinckley Reservoir has been below 1,185 feet for many weeks and water supplies have not been compromised at those levels,” Canal Corp. hydrologist Howard Goebel wrote to his boss, Director of Canals Carmella Mantello, in an e-mail on Sept. 25.

This e-mail came just one day before Oneida County declared a state of emergency over the water shortage. The Canal Corp. questioned the necessity of that decision, according to the memos and e-mails obtained by the Observer-Dispatch through Freedom of Information Law requests.

The reservoir had fallen by Sept. 26 to about 1,188 feet in elevation - or only 3 feet above the level that the water authority says could have disrupted the water supply for 130,000 area residents.

On Sept. 27, the state announced an unprecedented shift in water flow to protect Hinckley Reservoir's water supply. This came about only after days of communications among a wide array of state and local agencies to break the logjam that had prevented action sooner.

Government records show how conflicting interests got in the way of resolving the situation earlier:

* The water authority and Canal Corp. rarely communicated directly about the crisis in the 2,000-plus pages of documents obtained by the O-D. The two agencies have been in court for more than three years since the authority sued the Canal Corp. over access to Hinckley Reservoir water.

* The two agencies' experts routinely disagreed on the reservoir's hydrology and on proper application of historical reservoir outflow guidelines. Those guidelines were developed in 1920 and are known in bureaucratic parlance as the Rule Curve.

* The Canal Corp. did not know that the water authority had installed plates on Hinckley Dam intake openings 20 years ago that would have impeded access to drinking water if the reservoir had fallen much lower.

The water authority places the blame for last summer's inaction squarely on the Canal Corp.

Water authority Executive Director Patrick Becher wrote Oneida County Executive Anthony Picente on Sept. 26 to complain that the Canal Corp. had allowed higher rates of reservoir outflow during the summer than called for under the 1920 Rule Curve.

“It is equally disturbing that the Canal Corporation has disregarded public health concerns by denying repeated requests from the New York Power Authority to reduce the rate of water being released through the dam,” Becher wrote.

In a Sept. 27 e-mail to other agency officials, Mantello states the Canal Corp. acted properly in managing Hinckley Reservoir outflow all summer.

“When the deviations to the Operating Diagram were done, Hinckley reservoir levels were not threatened,” Mantello wrote. “Standard Operating Procedure is to utilize Hinckley Reservoir to meet the navigation needs” of the state canal system.

Looming over the entire disagreement is the lawsuit.

The water authority wants to expand its reach to central and western Oneida County, including Oneida Indian Nation lands, and to portions of Herkimer County.

The Canal Corp. has resisted making that water available, saying the water is needed to ensure navigation on the state's canals.

The authority has sued, and the case remains unresolved.

In memos and e-mails last summer, the state Department of Environmental Conservation questioned the water authority's plans to extend water lines.

That approach is linked to the idea that the Canal Corp would modify its water use at Hinckley as reservoir levels approach 1,185 feet during dry periods.

The DEC cast doubt on the likelihood of this happening in a September memo obtained by the O-D.

“The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has not been provided proof that those deviations will be made as required by the (Water Authority) model,” the department's Region Six Director Judy Drabicki wrote Becher on Sept. 5.

“Without a writ¬ten agreement between MVWA and NYS Canal Corporation establishing that the deviations will be made, the Department cannot accept MVWA's safe yield analysis for Hinckley Reservoir as valid,” Drabicki wrote.

Last summer, the Canal Corp. told the New York Power Authority to disregard the water authority's 1,185-foot-elevation threshold, despite the water authority's concerns the reservoir level was dropping too low.

In an e-mailed response to Observer-Dispatch questions, the Canal Corp. said the 1920 Rule Curve indicated reservoir levels could “vary 55 feet between a full reservoir level of 1,225 feet to a low level of 1,170 feet.”

“The New York State Canal Corporation is obligated to manage the release of water from Hinckley Reservoir in accordance with this contract, which is filed as a deed in Oneida and Herkimer Counties,” Erin Agans of the Canal Corp. wrote in a mid-September letter to the power authority.

Becher argues the Canal Corp. is wrong, particularly since the authority added a water treatment plant in 1992 that requires greater water pressure to operate. It's best for the drinking water supply if reservoir levels stay above 1,185 feet, he said.

Dan Gilmore, environmental health director for the Oneida County Health Department, said Becher's statements about the treatment plant were correct.

“The system is basically a gravity feed system,” Gilmore said. “There is really no pumping involved. If there is not enough push from Hinckley, it kind of slows down the entire force.”

Another factor cited by Becher: In the mid-1980s, outflow portals at the reservoir between 1,180 feet and 1,170 feet in elevation were sealed off.

“We would have had a situation where possibly in five or six days, we were going to run into problems,” Becher said of the reservoir level in late September.
Sorting out the elevation dispute presents a puzzle not only for state and local agencies but for the federal government.

In a Sept. 21 letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the state power authority sought guidance on how to deal with conflicting interests at Hinckley.
The letter points to 1981 comments by the Utica Board of Water Supply – the authority's predecessor – on an application to run the dam at Hinckley.

“The Utica Board of Water Supply stated that it was important during periods of drought to set aside the Rule Curve and assure that the reservoir was maintained at a level of at least 1,185 feet,” the letter reads.

The letter goes on to cite language in the power authority's license application that points out that in past drought periods, the 1920 operating diagram – or Rule Curve – was set aside to maintain a minimum elevation of 1,185 feet at Hinckley Reservoir.

Observer-Dispatch

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.